Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shri. I Lanu Toy vs North Eastern Electric Power ... on 22 February, 2010

               Central Information Commission
                            2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
                        Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
                                Website: www.cic.gov.in

                                                          Decision No.5172/IC(A)/2010
                                                          F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000381
                                                        Dated, the 22nd February, 2010

Name of the Appellant:                  Shri. I Lanu Toy

Name of the Public Authority:           North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd.
                                        (NEEPCO Ltd.)
         i
Facts:

1. Both the parties were heard on 22/2/2010.

2. The complainant has asked for copies of his own appointment letter, agreement document and related information, of which he himself was also the custodian. Even though the information asked for was already with him, he chose to ask for copies from the respondent.

3. During the hearing, the complainant alleged that there was inordinate delay in supply of information, as the CPIO's response was backdated. The CPIO clarified that the information was sent on time, but there was some delay in dispatch of the information. He also said that the information was not readily available, as they had to be acquired from the concerned Project Office.

Decision:

4. The complainant has asked for information, which he is also expected to hold them, as the respondent has already provided the documents at the time of appointment of the complainant. Even if it is admitted that there was delay in supply of information, the CPIO cannot be said to have withheld the information for any malafied reasons. It is not understandable as to why the complainant chose to ask for information, which is about 15 years old. It seems that the parties have dispute relating to redressal of grievances of the complainant, an ex-employee, for which there are no provisions in the Act.

i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1

5. Since there is no denial of information u/s 8(1) of the Act, the appeal is considered unnecessary. It is also noted that the complainant did not file his first appeal before the Appellate Authority of the respondent, if no response was received within 30 days. Instead, the appellant directly approached the Commission, which was uncalled for.

6. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:

(M.C. Sharma) Deputy Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. I Lanu Toy, Wadikki, Kohima - 797 001.
2. Sh. P. Bhattacharjee, CPIO, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Brookland compound, Lower New Colony, Shilling - 793 003.
3. The Appellate Authority, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Brookland compound, Lower New Colony, Shilling - 793 003.

ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 2